Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not have to demonstrate that God is not weak because He chooses to use Messengers, since I did not claim that God is weak because He chooses to use Messengers. The premise that God is weak because He chooses to use Messengers is your premise so you are the one who needs to support your premise.Sure it's based on flawed logic. Stating that god is not weak because He chooses to use Messengers to communicate is a premise that you have not demonstrate to be true.
It can never be proven that God exists or that God sends Messengers. All we have is evidence, but evidence is not the same as verifiable proof. I have probably said this 100 times.You've failed to provide any evidence that this god being even exists, let alone that it sends messengers.
If these Messengers had such an impact upon society that is evidence that *indicates* (not proves) that they were sent by God, and if they were Messengers of God it certainly is evidence that the method that God has used is effectual. If God wants people to believe in Him He would use an effectual method, and Messengers are that method.Of course it's about whether or not these proposed messengers were sent from some god being. IF in fact these messengers had an effect on society but were NOT sent by your proposed god, then the existence of the messengers CANNOT be used to claim that your god is not ineffectual. If your god didn't send the messengers then your god had no effect upon society, and that makes your god ineffectual.
Oh, plenty of evidence has been shown.
..but you don't want to see it .. you can't see it .. it doesn't exist.
..when asked by my Lord on the day of judgment, "who is your Lord?", I have my answer ready .. no hesitation, God willing.
..whereas you .. you'd better hope you are not asked.
The revelations from God were not inaccurate when they were first revealed but after man meddled with them over long periods of time, these religions no longer resembled what was originally revealed.I know you have a different explanation, but that seems to me to suggest that the revelations were inaccurate in various ways. Fair enough really.
Fearing God dos not mean the same to everyone. It does not have to mean fear of what God is going to do to you if you are disobedient. To me fear of God means having reverence for God, being in awe of God, fully aware of God's power and what God could do. Moreover, fearing God does not preclude loving God and seeing God as a good parent.See, I believe the hilighted bit is all wrong. The parents I might have loved (never had them, instead was abused by others) are those -- not who I feared, but who I trusted. Parents I knew would try (as best they could) not to lead me astray, but who would not try to kill me (as a stepfather did twice).
Reread his post. he was asking about God not being weak. He was asking you to support your claim, he was not changing it.I do not have to demonstrate that God is not weak because He chooses to use Messengers, since I did not claim that God is weak because He chooses to use Messengers. The premise that God is weak because He chooses to use Messengers is your premise so you are the one who needs to support your premise.
No, I said it is not my guess, it is my belief. I did not guess, I researched and came to believe. As a belief it cannot be proven true, but that does not mean it is false. I suggest you bone up on your logic. If you say it is false because it has not yet been proven true (demonstrated) that is an argument from ignorance.It's both. You believe your guess. And why is it called a guess? Because it's not demonstrably correct.
I am not forced to reject what it says in the OT, but since it was written by en, I have no reason to believe it. However, even if God did speak to a few men directly in ancient times when the Bible as written, that does not mean that God did not also speak to Messengers and it does not mean that Messengers are not necessary or a good idea. Ever heard of Moses? According to the OT the Israelites on Mt Sinai did not want to hear from God directly, it frightened them, so they wanted Moses to receive the message. I heard this from a Jewish woman I once knew.As a Baha'i who believes that messengers are the best method available to a deity to communicate with man, you are pretty much forced to reject it. If God can speak to man directly, then messengers are not necessary nor a good idea.
It is really rather simple. God is not a human so God cannot communicate like a human communicates. That is why God employs a Messenger to communicate for Him, since a Messenger is both divine and human.Disagree. You just wave away such thinking by declaring it off limits. Your argument is to declare that messengers are the best way a tri-omni deity could choose to communicate, I disagree, you say, "Put your money where your mouth is," I give better ways to communicate, and your reply is to declare that I compare how humans communicate to how a god could is off limits.
I do not need to make excuses for God since God is infallible so God cannot ever make any mistakes. Moreover, God cannot do any *better* than He has done because God is All-knowing and All-wise. You are neither one of those so that means your opinion about what God should do differently is fallible. It is also illogical for the reasons i noted above.But it's you making the excuses - excuses for why this god can't do better than mundane messengers with mundane messages.
The messages from God are tailored for the human mind, made to order, signed, sealed and delivered. That is how I can can judge them. You can judge them too and come up with a different conclusion.Your own arguments can be used against you. How with your finite human mind would you know what a message from a god looked like to judge the one you have believed?
In other words, critical thinkers are atheists, and only a few believers can think critically. I do not care what you want to label yourself as, it does not make you any smarter than any believer, it just makes you more arrogant.Critical thinkers process information more accurately than all but a few of the 93%.
Every theist holds an irrational belief. And of course every atheist holds a rational belief.Faulty reasoning. And you seem to think that it's not possible to declare somebody's argument fallacious. Yes, every theist holds an irrational belief, since none can justify it with reason. Every one.
I made no claim that God is not weak because God uses Messengers, I said there is no correlation between weakness and the use of Messengers.Reread his post. he was asking about God not being weak. He was asking you to support your claim, he was not changing it.
Now, now. I am sure that your deity would not approve. You cannot even properly define evidence. You relied on a dictionary definition, but that was worthless since it cannot be used to tell what is and what is not evidence. You need a working definition of evidence.Too bad you cannot recognize the reliable evidence.
How about a bigger question - why does anything at all (including a god or gods) exist? Your question is answered by supernaturalist with a claim about a god existing, but my question can't even be answered with that.
Now, now. I am sure that your deity would not approve. You cannot even properly define evidence. You relied on a dictionary definition, but that was worthless since it cannot be used to tell what is and what is not evidence. You need a working definition of evidence.
I know you do not like to be pressed, but you are the one that tries to keep claiming that you have evidence and that does not appear to be the case at all.
And so far your criterion is a lose definition of cause and effect that allows you to decide when a supernatural event has occurred. You offer no manner to discern a supernatural event versus a natural event, so we reject your beliefs on this matter.
Actually the world coalesced quite quickly, very soon after the sun in universe time scales.
And chaos refutes a fine tuned argument
Because the Earth, and other planets, were formed by th collision of smaller objects. Those collisions are not perfect. Did you not read the article? That was what it was there for. There is a range of how much planets are off. From almost zero for Mercury, to almost 180 degrees for Venus. We are not on our side, Uranus is on its side.
Since you are the one who wants evidence, you are the one who needs a working definition of evidence.You cannot even properly define evidence. You relied on a dictionary definition, but that was worthless since it cannot be used to tell what is and what is not evidence. You need a working definition of evidence.
Sure, and we get that perfect season-creating angle, and a large moon (double planet) to stabilize that angle.
Kinda neat - the coincidences keep stacking up.
NO!! That is not the way that it works at all. You are the one claiming to have evidence. Right now it is rather clear that you don't. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is the same as saying "I don't have any evidence".Since you are the one who wants evidence, you are the one who needs a working definition of evidence.
In other words, what would constitute evidence for you?
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
In my opinion, it is cool how some things worked out to our advantage. However, I'm not so sure something like the Bible actually demonstrates a Creator being, so much as takes credit for everything that has gone on.